tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-61182642012-04-16T00:47:35.097-04:00Stone CourtA two-person blogFred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comBlogger694125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-78958096686339423422009-06-11T21:49:00.002-04:002009-06-11T21:53:16.970-04:00Surname Is Destiny<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_en_tv/us_people_chastity_bono">Chastity Bono</a> is undergoing a sex change operation.<br /><br />But what's really interesting is the name of his publicist.<br /><br />It's Howard Bragman.<br /><br />If I ever need a publicist, I sure hope I can get a Bragman (or Bragwoman).Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-32998441377232950752009-04-27T11:56:00.004-04:002009-04-27T11:58:47.141-04:00Separated at Birth?<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4iZGXM_ck1I/SfXV7U8wq9I/AAAAAAAAAAU/EuvcZBmRE2I/s1600-h/DavidLookingWorried.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329400949275405266" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 300px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 230px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4iZGXM_ck1I/SfXV7U8wq9I/AAAAAAAAAAU/EuvcZBmRE2I/s320/DavidLookingWorried.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4iZGXM_ck1I/SfXV7Q1DAGI/AAAAAAAAAAM/4BEn0qeRuqk/s1600-h/tim-geithner-close-sm-expires.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329400948169310306" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 180px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 100px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4iZGXM_ck1I/SfXV7Q1DAGI/AAAAAAAAAAM/4BEn0qeRuqk/s320/tim-geithner-close-sm-expires.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />The same worried look, perhaps because both were concerned they were over-matched by the job at hand?<br /><div></div></div>Mary Garthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12178809383963679185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-66206097239162924602009-01-06T09:52:00.002-05:002009-01-06T10:10:23.295-05:00Plenty of Time to Catch Up on Thinking When You're DeadRoland Burris <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_go_co/senate_burris">today</a>:<br /><blockquote>Some of Burris' supporters have bemoaned the fact that Democrats would stand in the way of the Senate gaining its only black member. Burris himself downplayed the issue of race, telling reporters: "I cannot control my supporters. <span style="font-style: italic;">I have never in my life, in all my years of being elected to office, thought anything about race.</span>" (Emphasis added.)<br /></blockquote>Roland Burris's <a href="http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/12/rip-burriss-tom.html">future tomb</a>:<br /><blockquote>Burris already has a granite mausoleum erected under the heading "TRAIL BLAZER," followed by his achievement as "First African-American in Illinois to Become", the Chicago Tribune reports.</blockquote>To be clear, while (like many) I think Burris has come off as a self-satisfied blowhard, that is not to say I think Burris should not be seated. To the contrary, my tentative view is that, while Akhil Amar has put forth a fairly persuasive (though hardly certain) <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2207754/pagenum/all/">argument</a> that the Senate has the unreviewable power to refuse to seat Burris, for the Senate to exercise that power here, where there is no evidence of a corrupt bargain between Blagojevich and Burris, would be an abuse of that power and set a bad precedent for the future. Better to let Burris be seated and schedule a special election to replace him <span>posthaste</span>, which the Illinois Legislature retains the power to do under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Seventeenth Amendment</a>.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-34408772527217756482008-11-20T13:55:00.003-05:002008-11-20T14:01:53.023-05:00You Gotta Lotta Bawls, Metaphor Imploding EditionLogic said this might happen, and <a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/11/playing-with-boys.html">via Melissa McEwan</a>, <a href="http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/sb20081120j2.html">it has</a>:<br /><blockquote>The knuckleball — the fluttering, hard-to-hit pitch that's rare in the major leagues — is propelling a 16-year-old girl to the pros in Japan.<br /><br />Eri Yoshida was inspired to learn how to throw the knuckler after seeing a video of Boston Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield. On Monday, she broke the gender barrier by being drafted for an independent league team as Japan's first female professional baseball player.</blockquote>And a <a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/11/playing-with-boys.html">classy response</a> from the Red Sox' Tim Wakefield:<br /><blockquote>"It's funny that I've reached that point in my career that people want to emulate me," Wakefield said. "I'm glad I had people like the Niekros, Charlie Hough and Tom Candiotti that I could look up to. I am deeply humbled that it is me this time."<br /><br />…"Hope I can see her pitch one day," Wakefield said in a message he texted to the Red Sox that was relayed to The Associated Press. "I'm honored that someone wants to become me. I wish her the best of luck. Maybe I can learn something from her."</blockquote>This blog will now return to its usual practice of not praising members of the Red Sox under any circumstances.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-62754422873389602232008-11-11T11:25:00.002-05:002008-11-11T11:36:13.552-05:00Getting Under Joe's Skin?When I first saw <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/243880.php">this news</a> on TPM: <blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Lieberman Off the Hook?<br />The Obama transition team <a href="https://mail.bgsu.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=6615b06253d143f58330f5f0bcfe6328&amp;URL=http%3a%2f%2ftpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com%2f2008%2f11%2fobama_spokesperson_he_doesnt_h.php" target="_blank">signals</a> to TPM Election Central that Joe Lieberman is safe.<br />"We don't hold any grudges," Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter<br />tells us.</blockquote><p>... I was cranky, because I've been just dying to see Traitor Joe ridden out of town on a rail, frog-marched out of the caucus, tarred and feathered, etc. </p><p>But then I got thinking some more... and I think this may be another absolutely brilliant move on Obama's part. </p><p>Why brilliant, you ask? <br /><br />Well, because it makes Obama a bigger guy than Lieberman. Lieberman, clearly, DOES hold grudges--which is a big part of what's gotten him where he is today. At the same time, Lieberman is, as we've said a thousand times, a sanctimonious son of a bitch who likes to think he's better than everyone else. But this clearly indicates that he's NOT better than Barack Obama. </p><p>Seriously, this is like some of those other really sly ways that Obama has managed to drive certain people (like Bill Clinton) absolutely batshit crazy without ever saying anything that anyone else would interpret as a bad thing to have said. </p><p>Maybe I'm reading too much into it. But I think Joe was angling to be deprived of his committee chairmanship and kicked out of the caucus so he could once again blame the Democrats, talk about how the party has left him, and play the martyr. This deprives him of that opportunity. How does he keep his head from exploding if Barack Obama is a better man than he? </p><blockquote></blockquote>Mary Garthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12178809383963679185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-21746713658875579832008-10-16T10:20:00.002-04:002008-10-16T10:29:43.049-04:00You Gotta Lotta Bawls, Gold-Plated Ones EditionFor a cool million, the Obama campaign convinces Fox to ask Major League Baseball to <a href="http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/10/obama_ad_pushes_back_start_of.php">move back the start time of Game 6 of the World Series</a>. And the <a href="http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_archive.html#111988566297801593">very Republican</a> MLB agrees.<br /><br />Money talks.<br /><br />Related Post: <a href="http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_archive.html#111988566297801593">You Gotta Lotta Bawls, Breathtaking Hypocrisy Edition</a>Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-7837845906586190132008-09-29T11:57:00.003-04:002008-09-29T12:06:35.667-04:00Stacking the Deck?Via <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220563.php">Josh Marshall</a>, the McCain campaign is complaining that debate moderator will have stacked the deck against Sarah Palin if it asks more, or even an equal number of, questions concerning foreign policy, as that area is perceived as Joe Biden's strength and (one of) Sarah Palin's weaknesses.<br /><br />Frankly, I would be shocked if -- in the current environment, when a third of the first Presidential debate was converted from foreign to domestic policy -- Ifill asks more than half of her questions about foreign policy. She will probably ask less. But if she does ask half, McCain has no reason to complain. Both campaigns agreed to Ifill, knowing full well that when she moderated <a href="http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html">the last (Cheney-Edwards) VP debate</a> she split her questions almost exactly equally between foreign and domestic issues. Based on word count, excluding Ifill's opening remarks and the candidates' closing statements, the debate was 51.2% on domestic matters and 48.8% on foreign policy.<br /><br />That said, if the McCain campaign is hoping for a focus on domestic issues, you have to assume they are not looking forward to Thursday night.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-87567286051516739042008-09-11T14:48:00.002-04:002008-09-11T14:54:07.993-04:00I'm Fred Vincy and I Approved This MessageMuch attention to James Carville's completely unwarranted defense of John McCain as not knowing about the dishonest ads his campaign is running and he is on record as approving:<br /><blockquote>But I refuse to believe that John McCain agreed to airing this spot. I know he says I'm John McCain, I paid for it but they have that in the can and they do it. It I don't think he knew about it. I really don't.</blockquote>Less attention to <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> John McCain appears in the ads saying he approves them. It's because of a provision in his signature legislative accomplishment, the <span style="font-style: italic;">McCain</span>-Feingold campaign finance reform act (although I believe Ron Wyden was the author of this particular provision). In other words, no one is <span style="font-style: italic;">less</span> entitled to the benefit of the doubt accorded by Carville than is John McCain.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-63081205447966210792008-09-09T09:04:00.002-04:002008-09-09T09:16:32.362-04:00Obama's EarmarksWith the McCain campaign trying to make a big deal out of Obama's earmarks -- and to pretend that Palin hasn't been an even bigger advocate of earmarks -- it's worth taking a look at what Obama was requesting those earmarks <span style="font-style: italic;">for</span>. He has <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/">a list on his Senate website</a> for the most recent year (requested in 2007). I'm sure reasonable people could differ on the worthiness of these various projects, but for the most part they seem to be directed at entirely reasonable needs of Obama's state -- upgrading and maintaining dams, roads, hospitals, and museums, education, AIDS, national security/emergency preparedness, etc.<br /><br />For a sample, here's the biggest one:<br /><strong></strong><blockquote><strong>Army Corps of Engineers in Illinois, to support project UMR-IWW System Navigation Study, IL, IA, MN, MO, &amp; WI, $24,000,000</strong> <p>Pre-Construction Engineering &amp; Design (PED) of seven new 1,200-foot lock chambers and ecosystem restoration. Timely PED work for navigation is consistent with a recent study indicating that without new 1,200-foot lock chambers at the identified seven locations, American farmers stand to lose over $562 million annually in lost exports and domestic demand by 2020. Manufacturers and consumers also stand to lose from deteriorating infrastructure on our " Third Coast" in addition to the 400,000 jobs sustained by this transportation corridor. Construction of these new lock chambers will create at least 48 million man-hours, or up to 6,000 construction jobs each year, providing immediate economic benefits through high-skilled labor, and spurring much-needed economic growth that has historically occurred through investing in our lock and dam infrastructure.</p></blockquote><p> </p>Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-48040918448058838582008-09-08T06:29:00.002-04:002008-09-08T06:36:48.906-04:00O.K.<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip">Gallup says</a> we're ten points down.<br /><br />The media is <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/214508.php">giving up</a> on having a serious interview of Sarah Palin.<br /><br />The Obama Campaign has to stop acting like it's ahead and hit McCain hard. This is the moment, as when the Swift Boat ads came out in 2004, when the tone and structure of the campaign are likely to be set.<br /><br />The ads that McCain represents the same policies as Bush are fine, but they are not enough. McCain says it's not true. To win that fight, you have to attack his character, his integrity. There's plenty to work with, from the Keating Five to his serial flip-flops over the last eight years.<br /><br />But it has to be hard, and it has to be memorable.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-76469480575356269432008-09-05T13:46:00.002-04:002008-09-05T13:56:12.298-04:00Rather ReduxWhat is Alaska State Senator Hollis French <a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5734511&amp;page=1">thinking</a>?<br /><blockquote>ABC News has exclusively learned that Alaska Senator Hollis French will announce today that he is moving up the release date of his investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her office to get the Alaska public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, fired. The results of the investigation were originally scheduled for release Oct. 31 but will now come almost three weeks earlier, according to sources....<br /><br />The Alaska state senator running an investigation of Gov. Palin had accused the McCain campaign of using stall tactics to prevent him from releasing his final report by Oct. 31, four days before the November election.<br /><br />"It's likely to be damaging to the Governor's administration," said Senator Hollis French, a Democrat, appointed the project manager for a bi-partisan State Senate Legislative Counsel Committee investigation. </blockquote>Maybe it's legitimate to move up the date -- Palin's now refusing to testify, so there will be less evidence to weigh -- but the change comes across as an effort to embarrass Palin before the election (rather than simply to finish a legislatively-approved investigation). (Of course, it may actually help McCain-Palin to get damaging information out there in early October, rather than days before the election, but that's besides the point.)<br /><br />And why did French feel compelled to opine on what the investigation would show before it's completed. Of course, in the real world, good investigators know where an investigation is leading, but publicly stating those views is at best unprofessional and at worst evidence of bias.<br /><br />Remember how, in 2004, real questions about George Bush's National Guard service were quickly dropped when Dan Rather relied on a forged document? I have a strong feeling that we may see a replay of that with Troopergate.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-77521909601647073892008-08-30T09:51:00.002-04:002008-08-30T09:57:06.133-04:00Republican Women Who Are Qualified to Be President, Part IIMary correctly points out that I omitted Jodi Rell from my list in the previous post.<br /><br />Notably, that means that six of the seven most accomplished women in the Republican party are pro-choice (only Dole is not), thus rejecting one of their party's central principles.<br /><br />I wonder why that might be....Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-17618728714538226982008-08-29T13:59:00.004-04:002008-08-29T14:04:23.197-04:00Republican Women Who Are Qualified to Be President*Condoleezza Rice<br />Elizabeth Dole<br />Christine Todd Whitman<br />Kay Bailey Hutchison<br />Olympia Snowe<br />Susan Collins<br /><br />*Political views aside.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-88905510380052951542008-08-29T12:37:00.003-04:002008-08-29T12:50:51.398-04:00Not Born YesterdayMcCain, that is.<br /><br />I'm nitpicking, I realize, but as a demographer, I think I do get to correct errors like this when I see them.<br /><br />In an otherwise on-target <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/29/104611/395/220/578471">post </a>about McCain's pathetic and desperate choice of the woefully inexperienced Palin as v.p., Trapper John over at Daily Kos writes, <blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>And he's presented Americans with the prospect of electing a dangerous neophyte<br />to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, behind a man whose life expectancy<br />is less than two presidential terms.</blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>If John McCain <em>had </em>been born yesterday, this statement would be true. The life expectancy <em>at birth</em> of a white man in the United States as of the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_03.pdf">2000 lifetables</a> is 74.8, or far less than 8 years from McCain's present age (as of today) of 72.<br /><br />But McCain, instead of being born yesterday, was born 72 years ago today. The life expectancy at age 70 of a white man in the United States is <em>13 more years</em>, for an age of 83. So actually, McCain <em>would</em> be expected to survive 2 terms based on the mortality of people who've made it as far as he has.<br /><br />Mind you, that's not taking into account his history of cancer or the ways in which the deprivation he experienced as a POW may have prematurely aged him and affected his health.<br /><br />As I said, it's nitpicking, because obviously McCain's chances of dying in office, were he elected, are far greater than Obama's, and besides, we hold should <em>all</em> presidential candidates to the standard that their vice presidential picks should be ready to assume the Presidency if necessary...<br /><br />I just hate to see life expectancy misrepresented.Mary Garthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12178809383963679185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-78493915666796307962008-08-29T11:30:00.001-04:002008-08-29T11:50:45.604-04:00PalinA very weak pick.<br /><br />My first thought was Geraldine Ferraro, who was disaster for Mondale because of her obvious lack of qualification for office and family scandals.<br /><br />But it's worse than that, because this is 2008, not 1984, and there are a number of women with the gravitas for the job. (And Palin's resume is thinner even than Ferraro's was in 1984.)<br /><br />People have been comparing this election to 1980, but I suddenly feel like we may be partying like it's 1984....Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-4133810385603534692008-08-27T10:29:00.004-04:002008-08-27T10:45:47.055-04:00Vote for Barack Obama or I Will Kill Myself!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9uuT0c7EKsE/SLVlwu1O00I/AAAAAAAAACI/ZaGY62M8WBw/s1600-h/blazing+saddles.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9uuT0c7EKsE/SLVlwu1O00I/AAAAAAAAACI/ZaGY62M8WBw/s400/blazing+saddles.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5239205629394867010" border="0" /></a>Amazingly, Bill Kristol finds Clinton's endorsement of Barack Obama "<a href="http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2008/08/27/bill-kristol-hillarys-shockingly-minimal-endorsement/">shockingly minimal</a>".<br /><br />It got we wondering .... If that's minimal, what would a maximal endorsement look like?<br /><br />The only thing I could come up with is from <span style="font-style: italic;">Blazing Saddles</span>.<span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-16546809595172753922008-08-27T10:05:00.002-04:002008-08-27T10:09:01.975-04:00Were They Watching the Same Speech I Was?The main headline from the New York Times this morning:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/us/politics/27dems.html?hp">Clinton Delivers Emphatic Plea for Unity</a><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/us/politics/27dems.html?hp">Betrays No Anger in Backing Obama</a><br /><br />What made that a "plea" for unity? There was nothing pathetic about it. How about a "call" for unity? Or even a "clarion call"? Or a "resounding call"?<br /><br />And what's with the subtitle? Did they really expect her to "betray" anger? That assumes she's feeling it and was just doing a good job of hiding her "true" feelings. But everything we know about Hillary Clinton and what she has worked for all her life suggests that indeed, she meant every word she said last night. <br /><br />These people are so enamored of their Democrats-infighting story, they can't see what's <em>right in front of them. </em>Mary Garthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12178809383963679185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-44804934886512135742008-08-27T08:05:00.002-04:002008-08-27T08:54:22.856-04:00CatharsisA great, great political speech by Hillary Clinton last night.<br /><br />The defining passage, of course, was this challenge to her own supporters, which spoke to both their hearts and their heads:<br /><blockquote>I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?</blockquote>The speech gave Hillary's supporters a chance to show their love for Hillary twice -- by cheering her at the convention, and by working for her ideals by supporting Barack Obama.<br /><br />But an underreported aspect of Hillary's speech was that it spoke just as much to Obama's supporters. It gave those of us who did not support Hillary the chance to love her again. It was a poignant reminder to those of us who voted against her because of Iraq -- and I do believe she would have won the presidency had it not been for her vote for the AUMF -- of her decades of fighting for justice and equality, and especially for healthcare and the lives of women and children, and of all the terrible, terrible calumny she has had to had to endure for being a liberal and for being a woman.<br /><br />The healing has to be both ways. Hillary's supporters need to get in line. But Obama's supporters need to greet them with open arms. I've always thought those things would happen, but they will happen with a lot more enthusiasm now.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-33208473595253996172008-08-25T13:50:00.002-04:002008-08-25T14:27:58.622-04:00Lieberman?OK. This time it took two years, not <a href="http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html#1565893447465866362">two hours</a>, to go from Stone Court to conventional wisdom. <a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&amp;year=2008&amp;base_name=why_mccain_will_choose_lieberm">Ezra Klein</a> and <a href="http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/wingnuts_will_fall_in_line_behind_lieberman/">Amanda Marcotte</a> now both argue that John McCain is likely to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate.<br /><br />From Stone Court, <a href="http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html#116483964802881335">November 29, 2006</a>:<br /><h2></h2><blockquote><h2>McCain-Lieberman '08<a name="116483964802881335"> </a></h2> I considered including <a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/29/151156/84">this possibility</a> in my <a href="http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_thurgood_archive.html#116283277916860857">pre-election post</a> arguing that Lieberman was unlikely to become a Republican when reelected. Joe's <span style="font-style: italic;">raison d'être</span> is to be President, or at least Vice President (preferably for someone who'd be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain">72 at inauguration and has a history of cancer</a>). There is no way that that will ever happen as a Democrat (even Joementum himself finally realizes that) and there is no way it would ever happen as a Republican. If he becomes a Republican, he's just another pro-choice (well, mostly) Northeasterner without Giuliani's mythology or Pataki's record of being, well, a Republican. Only as a Democrat does he bring anything to a ticket.<br /><br />The Republicans know their best (only?) chance of winning is by hiding what they stand for, since the post-Gingrich Republican agenda has never been widely popular (and is clearly less so post-2006 elections). That was the whole point of "compassionate conservatism" and "uniter not a divider". It was a deliberate lie to conceal what Bush intended to do. But Americans have seen that movie, and I can't see the same game plan working again. The 2006 elections sent the clear message that just saying "we're different from Bush" is not going to work.<br /><br />McCain is the perfect person to lead such a strategy of deception. He's a conservative Republican who has convinced the media he's a principled "maverick" who's not part of the Republican machine. What better way to reinforce and amplify this very helpful media dynamic than picking a Democrat (and Gore's VP no less)? I suppose Lieberman could help in the same way with someone else at the top, but it really only works with McCain, because without him the maverick angle doesn't fly with the media and it looks a bit like choosing Zell Miller....</blockquote>As Ezra and Amanda argue, that logic still holds.<br /><br />And Lieberman's hand was clearly strengthened by the Biden pick. The two front-runners -- Romney and Pawlenty, who together control 85% of the Intrade market -- both lack the experience to go up against Biden persuasively in debate. (The same could be said of Obama vis-a-vis McCain, but Obama levels the playing field with greater intellectual and rhetorical ability and the trump card of having been right about invading Iraq, neither of which are available to Romney or Pawlenty (though Pawlenty does come across as likable).)<br /><br />But still.<br /><br />It's an awfully risky strategy with the base, which is finally coming around to McCain. If McCain's first appointment is someone who was endorsed by NARAL as recently as 2006 and voted against religious right darlings Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, how can the religious right have any confidence that he won't pick the next David Souter when there's an opening on the Supreme Court? And McCain will be 72 this week and is a cancer survivor. And did I mention Lieberman is Jewish?<br /><br />Mary rightly points out that Lieberman is tight with religious right figures such as John Hagee, but that still strikes me as a marriage of convenience over their shared love of war in the Middle East. That's a long way from wanting Lieberman to be a heartbeat away.<br /><br />Yes, it will help McCain among "low information" independents and some Jews (though the latter are only <a href="http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/76_christian_church_adherents_and_jewish_population.html">1.3%</a> of the population in critical Ohio), but those gains are likely to be erased by reduced turnout among evangelicals, many of whom have already voiced the get-worse-before-it-gets-better mentality that, via Ralph Nader, brought us George Bush.<br /><br />So, yeah, I can still see it. But McCain has to believe that he has no other way to win to take such a gamble.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-3527561192672690712008-08-22T13:35:00.002-04:002008-08-22T13:58:16.414-04:00You Can't Say That During an Election!<a href="http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&amp;year=2008&amp;base_name=against_early_cabinest_against">Ezra Klein may be right</a> that picking Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense would be a bad idea, but I am not convinced that it would be illegal to announce that pick in advance. Klein cites 18 <a href="http://vlex.com/vid/19191068">USC 599</a>, which provides:<blockquote>Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.</blockquote>I agree that Klein's reading of the statute -- that it prohibits Obama from pledging to name Hagel his SoD -- is consistent with the statute's language but, if that is the meaning, the statute would seem to raise serious First Amendment concerns. Indeed, I can hardly imagine political speech more central to the First Amendment than a Presidential candidate's promises concerning how the candidate will govern, including whom he or she will appoint. Playing Scalia for a moment and focusing on the late 18th Century, consider if during the 1796 election John Adams had promised to reappoint the highly controversial, and uniquely talented, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury. Could there have been a clearer statement to voters of the economic policies he intended to pursue? Would the Founders really have agreed that the First Amendment was satisfied if Adams had had to make the far weaker assertion that he would merely follow the policies of Hamilton?<br /><br />Despite this constitutional infirmity, the statute may have force in a different situation. Consider for example if Obama promised Hillary Clinton that she would be the Secretary of Defense in order to induce her to push her supporters to vote for him. That smacks of corruption, not of free speech, and in my view is better understood as the conduct the statute should be read as targeting.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-15658934474658663622008-08-21T12:08:00.003-04:002008-08-22T14:03:51.755-04:00No Veep Announcement TodayNo <span style="font-style: italic;">way</span> the Obama campaign steps on the firestorm over how many homes John McCain owns until it's had a chance to get some oxygen.<br /><br />UPDATE: From Stone Court to <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/08/analysis_why_the_heated_home_d.html">conventional wisdom</a> in two hours....Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-23606642512765816932008-08-20T15:44:00.002-04:002008-08-20T15:47:43.413-04:00Lost in Translation?From our trip to Estonia:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9uuT0c7EKsE/SKx0y37vWKI/AAAAAAAAACA/O-d5ieCr26s/s1600-h/905548491603_0_BG.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9uuT0c7EKsE/SKx0y37vWKI/AAAAAAAAACA/O-d5ieCr26s/s400/905548491603_0_BG.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236688884081842338" /></a>Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-41438022521194348072008-08-19T10:57:00.002-04:002008-08-19T11:03:01.825-04:00BidenYglesias <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/08/the_mbna_factor.php">excuses</a> Biden's vote on the bankruptcy bill as merely the norm for a Senator supporting a major home state business, but I have to say that at the time it seemed worst than that.<br /><br />I don't have time for a full Biden review, but here's a <a href="http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_archive.html#111038638570700225">Stone Court blast from the past</a> regarding the current front-runner:<br /><h2></h2><blockquote><h2>Senator Pig<a name="111038638570700225"> </a></h2> Atrios <a href="http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_03_06_atrios_archive.html#111034378857642127">links</a> to a <a href="http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/001206.html">list</a> of 14 "Democrats Who Will Never Be President" due to their shameful votes to let the bankruptcy bill come to the Senate floor.<br /><br />Joe Biden deserves a special place on that list for his disrespectful, condescending, and generally piggish cross examination of <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/facdir.php?id=82">Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren</a>:<br /><blockquote>WARREN: A woman who borrowed $2,200, the credit she paid back, $2,100 over the two years preceding bankruptcy, and at the end of that period of time she was told she still owed $2,600. With fees and interest, I submit, Senator, that there are many in the credit industry right now who are getting their bankruptcies prepaid. That is, they have squeezed enough out of these families in interest and fees and payments that never pay down the principal.<br /><br />BIDEN: Maybe we should talk about usury rates then. Maybe that's what we should talk about, not bankruptcy.<br /><br />WARREN: Senator, I'll be the first. Invite me.<br /><br />BIDEN: No, I know you will, but let's call a spade a spade. Your problem with the credit card companies is usury rates from your position. It's not about the bankruptcy bill.<br /><br />WARREN: But, Senator, if you're not going to fix that problem, you can't take away the last shred of protection for these families.<br /><br />BIDEN: I got it. OK. You're very good, Professor.</blockquote>Transcript via <a href="http://www.lexis.com/">Lexis($)</a>, but it sounded even more sarcastic and offensive as delivered -- you can listen <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4515876">here</a>.</blockquote>Better than Bayh and Kaine gets you a <span style="font-weight: bold;">C</span>.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-76113593515551599012008-08-06T16:44:00.001-04:002008-08-06T16:45:39.256-04:00Emily's Listshould really stop endorsing <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/207370.php">candidates running against pro-choice Democratic incumbents</a>.Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6118264.post-69232621717419350102008-07-30T07:36:00.004-04:002008-07-30T08:56:14.424-04:00No on Tim KaineThis is important.<br /><br />All the buzz is now that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is at the top of Barack Obama's short list for Vice President.<br /><br />Tim Kaine is pro-life. Or pretty close. <a href="http://thegspot.typepad.com/blog/2008/07/tim-kaine-hell.html">Kathy G</a> documents that Kaine says he is "personally pro-life" because of his Catholic faith. However, unlike other Catholic Dems (like Kerry or Sebelius) who couple that with statements <span style=""> </span>(and actions) that abortion should be legally protected, Kaine has offered only the most tepid statement that he'd enforce the law on abortion.<span style=""> </span>(As Kathy asks, “but what if the Supreme Court overturns Roe and leaves abortion up to the states?”)<span style=""> </span>Kathy also lists a number of other clues to his position, such as his inexplicable opposition to government funding of embryonic stem cell research, as well as a number of other reasons he’d be “a piss-poor choice”. <p class="MsoNormal">Once again, this is a trial balloon.<span style=""> </span>The Obama campaign wants to know if the liberal blogosphere will freak out about Kaine.<span style=""> </span>And so far it has not.<span style=""> </span>So far, it has been deafening silence on his pro-life position, and generally Kaine has received favorable reviews.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I really think the Obama campaign would think twice about Kaine if the liberal blogosphere drew a line in the sand.<span style=""> </span>If you have a liberal blog, please post on your opposition to Tim Kaine, and encourage others to do so.</p>Fred Vincyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12528613957081740085noreply@blogger.com